Let me guess, you’re a complete asshole?
Q:Continued.. Not teaching a certain point of view in school is ridiculous, especially if you want people to be open minded and accepting of other people's points of view. The question didn't specify teaching the children that creationism is right or evolution is wrong, it just specified that students should be taught both sides of the coin, which is fair, obviously.
(Continued message from our lovely eugenics anon—we wanted to address this one separately, and a preemptive apology to our readers who aren’t interested in essays about non-OKC topics, but this one is long.)
For our readers who don’t know, the question that anon is referring to goes as follows:
Should evolution and creationism be taught side-by-side in public schools?
- Yes, students should hear both sides
- No, creationism has no place in public schools
- No, evolution has no place in public schools
First off, I find this question to be a bit vague. Do they mean that evolution and creationism should be taught in the same classroom, on equal footing, or are they just asking if they should both be addressed at some point in the curriculum, maybe in separate classes? I honestly have no issue with teaching creationism in a religion or similar social studies class. Creation myths, stories, beliefs, and ideas of “intelligent design” have been around for millennia, and ignoring them is ignoring a large part of human history and how humans have viewed the world for much of time.
For the purpose of answering this, though, I’m going to take the question to be asking if evolution and creationism should be taught in the same (presumably science) class. To start, I’m going to walk you through why evolution is science and creationism just…isn’t. At all.
Evolution is a scientific theory, which, as defined by the National Academy of Sciences, is “a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.” Now, to the layperson, the term “theory” generally means a postulation or a statement meant to explain an observation; it hasn’t been tested and is a work in progress. A potential theory that I could make up to explain why the sky is blue is that many smurfs live there. This theory could lead to a few hypotheses that scientists could test. Of course this isn’t why the sky is blue, and I hope that you can clearly see that these definitions of the word “theory” are at odds.
Going further, the NAS defines a fact as “an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as “true.” Truth in science, however, is never final, and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow.” Herein lies the beauty of science: that, as scientists, we are always learning and updating our theories to make them better match the facts that we have tested (over and over and over again) and found to be “true.” So, when we say that evolution is a theory, we mean that it has been tested and confirmed and re-confirmed through a billion different methods and observations. In fact, evolution is probably one of the best-confirmed and substantiated theories that we have, so saying that evolution might be “wrong” tells me you don’t understand how well we’ve tested it.*
Now, I hope that you don’t blast me for the next paragraph or two, but creationism just isn’t a scientific theory. It’s not. Creationism, and creation myths in general, outlines a symbolic narrative of how the cosmos began; these stories hold great meaning within many societies and help orient humanity within an expansive universe, and their themes dispense knowledge of a particular society’s cultural norms and beliefs. I’m not going to argue with their importance within societies and to individuals.
However, there’s no way to test the hypothesis that some supernatural force or being made the universe “intelligently.” It isn’t science; it is, for many in the United States, a story told in Sunday school. It is not okay to present creationism as if it is on equal intellectual footing as a scientific theory that has essentially been proven to be true.** It is especially not okay to present creationism on par with evolution in a public school, which is an environment that is meant to be secular due to its status as a federally-funded institution.
So, if you are going to answer that evolution and creationism should be taught side-by-side in public schools, you are telling me a few things about yourself. First, you don’t understand how science works, which tells me that you might tend toward anti-intellectualism. Second, you don’t understand why creationism isn’t science. And third, you don’t believe in the separation of church and state. Personally, I’m not interested in dating somebody who places religion at the center of their life or who doesn’t like science at least a little bit, so if you answer that evolution has no place in public schools, then I don’t think we’ll get along.
Again, I’m not arguing that creationism shouldn’t be taught in a non-biased way in the proper setting within a public school. It is an important part of our culture that is worth knowing something about. It’s just that it should be very clear that a science classroom isn’t the correct place to add it to the curriculum.
*Snarky aside: I mean, seriously, we don’t fully have a working theory of how gravity works, but you’re not going to deny that it exists, right? There’s maybe a 0.000001% chance that evolution is wrong, and scientists will cop to that if it turns out to be the case.
**To the best of our scientific knowledge, which is pretty good, by the by.
Q:Just wanted to say how much I love this blog -- not just for the submissions but for the feminist commentary and advice. I actually met my husband on OKCupid four years ago and seeing this makes me remember how much crap I waded through before I found him. (Like the guy 20+ years older who told me to google a sex act that he wanted to perform on me, ugh.) I wish I had a site like yours back then. Keep up the great work!
It’s always so great to hear stories about how OKC can actually work. It’s easy to lose sight of that when you spend all your time curating a blog like this.
Thanks for reading!
A, K, & S
Here’s an interesting one.
This guy messaged me maybe two weeks ago simply saying, “Would you like to have casual sex?” I never meet up with guys who just send me that because seriously, would it kill you to ask for my name or something? Anyway, I told him no and then went about my business. Today, I received this.
I just really love the idea that he and a bunch of friends got together and all sent me messages, then compared notes on who got a reply. Ugh. I bet his friends were the numerous “Nice Guys” i get who tell me I should smile more or just say “hey” and then expect a novel in return. Also, when I do reply to guys saying “No thanks,” I usually get called a fat whore. There’s literally no winning.
Q:I wanna ask about the previous image, you mentioned the "world being a better place if people with low IQ's couldn't reproduce" and evolution and creationism both being taught in school as reasons as to why you wouldn't date someone. That seems pretty shitty of you, i mean like, objectively the human race would be better off if eugenics was in place, it's a fact, it's an awful thing to do but you can't deny that the human race would be better off with it. They're not saying they support it.
No, actually, the world wouldn’t be a better place. I’d love to see one iota of fact based research, as every attempt at eugenics in society has been a massacre of human rights and personal liberty. But, no, please tell me how “it’s a fact.” I would love to see your data. Having a high IQ doesn’t make you a better person, it just means you have a higher IQ. Anecdata ahead, I would guess everyone reading this knows shitty people who have high IQs and great people who have lower IQs. Did you know that poverty has been shown to reduce your IQ by an average of 13 points?
The modern pro-eugenics movement, starting in the early 19th century in the US has a history of being tied to racist thinking, as a movement primarily linked to anti-immigration, classist, and anti minority thinking. The laws in thirty US states held the sterilization of lower class women to a different standard than women from wealthy families. 61 percent of the 62,162 total eugenic sterilizations in the United States were performed on women. None of these happened on women who were in the middle class or above; all were on women who were poor. Most of them were inflicted on women of color.
Also, there a negative effects to having a higher IQ. Those with higher IQs tend to stay up later at night. Did you know that people who stay up late are three times more likely to suffer from depression and have a higher risk for heart disease? People with IQs above 125 also have a higher rate of alcohol dependency than their lower IQed counterparts.
Which of course, brings us to the question, what is the cut off? Anything above average? Average usually falls around 90, though some scales put it at 85. Or are we only letting kind of bright people reproduce? So is 110 a good cut off? Most of the above average scales start at 110, or maybe we should go with the Stanford-Binet scale fifth edition that starts at 111. I mean, really, what’s 1 more IQ point going to hurt? Or should it be 125-130, which is generally considered very bright, but not genius levels? Or should only geniuses be allowed to have children? Maybe we should just arbitrarily cut it off at wherever this Anon commenter fell when they took an IQ test in third grade. Or maybe just one more point above that?
The human race would be better off without racism, sexism, classism, and elitism. People who believe otherwise are not people I am interested in dating. Because they’re shitty.
This is the second time that I have had almost exactly this conversation with this guy. I simply can not understand why people act like the match percentage is arbitrary. They answered these questions too!
His profile said he’s a passionate MRA and that feminists are trying to destroy what few rights men have left.
Q:Ever since I reactivated my OkCupid, I've been getting messages from guys that say something along the lines of, "Do you put ice in your milk?" I've gotten this from probably 5 guys, but I've never responded. Do you have any idea what this means? Probably some kind of pick up line?
It’s yet another charmer from PUA forums.
Q:I tend to get guys asking me for my amazon wishlist so they can "spoil me". I tend to brush them off, but I asked a few times why not ebay, since I prefer to use it, and they refused and said only amazon counts. Why? Do you know why are they so fixated about amazon?
Amazon is easier and faster than ebay for most people, I think.